Legal definition of citizens and naturalization is 5-year process

Hampton University
100 E Queen St, Hampton, VA 23668
April 8, 2016
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito
Supreme Court Justices of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First St NE,
Washington, DC 20543
Dear United States Federal Supreme Court:
According to Obamas executive order for immigration reform, those who have resided in
the US for longer than five years, with children who are legal residents or American
citizens, registered, able to pass a national and international background check, and
willing to pay taxes, will be eligible to stay in the United States temporarily without fear
of deportation (Executive). The Supreme Court should uphold Obamas executive order
for immigration reform, not only for the sake of upholding the executive branchs ability
to check and balance the legislative branch, but also for the sake of assisting the State of
Texas. In that respect, Texas and the States should not resist that which seeks to help it.
Although Texas reasoning for attacking the executive order is understandable due to the
way in which it appears to: promote more illegal immigration due to alleviating the
repercussions for many, increase human trafficking & drug cartels due to the fact that a
prevalence of the crimes thereof are traced back to immigrants, as well as the apparent
threat of damages to state expenditures due to the requirement of catering benefits to the
immigrant population via mandates by the reform (Understanding the), if the
Presidents immigration reform is not allowed to pass, than our shared fears are even
more likely to come to pass. We are all citizens of the United States, and as a fellow
citizen with much love and respect, I contend that it would behoove us to use justice and
work together in order to prevent hazards which have no place in the United States
The idea that the executive order will promote illegal immigration because it seems to
alleviate the repercussions for those who illegally migrate is a potential possibility.
However, the executive order requires that the residents have been residing for at least
five years from 2010 before they are eligible for Deferred Action(Executive). This
means that the reform largely only applies to a group who, without the reform will remain
to be an existing potential problem. Therefore it is virtually impossible for the reform to
serve as a motivating factor for illegal aliens to migrate, because its applicability is
irrelevant to that group. This is inherently true in that aliens who dwell on the outside
have no reason to be motivated to illegally reside in the United States based on a reform
that does not extend deferred action to the group thereof. Thus, although the reform

alleviates repercussions, it is safe to say that it will not result in a further surge of illegal
immigration to the United States, but instead it only helps those who are already illegally
residing due to the aforementioned requisite for eligibility.
In that respect, the way in which the reform helps a great deal of those who are already
illegally residing also benefits the State. This argument is also in accordance with Texas
beliefs because Texas argued that the reform would tempt more immigrants into illegally
migrating due to temporary citizenship or deferred action that it provides. The basis of
that argument relies on the idea that application for the DACA and DAPA are tempting.
Therefore, if many illegal immigrants will be tempted to apply for the reform, then
through the reform, it becomes easier for the government to ensure that the immigrants
do not lead counterproductive lives to the United States.
This is because the reform motivates the productivity of their citizenship due to the fact
that immigrants thereunder are required to renew their DACA/DAPA (Executive).
Therefore they have reason to prove their lives faithful to the US by walking in
accordance with the guidelines outlined by the DACA/DAPA standards of living (ex:
willingness to pay taxes, no criminal records), or else they are deported. Therefore the
reform tempts them to operate as beneficial temporal citizens, which is productive for the
States.
In respect to the reform increasing human trafficking and crimes, which is based on the
idea that immigrants can be linked to such crimes, the concern is logically warranted.
However, in the same way that it would be wrong for a man to pre-judge the majority of
black people as criminals due to their alarmingly abnormal incarceration rate, it is wrong
to pre-judge immigrants who seek to live in the US as a potential cause of higher crime
rates using statistics. Such arguments are only fair when time is allowed to verify their
soundness. The best method for allowing time to verify this argument would be through
allowing the Presidents executive order to stand for a designated test-period. Moreover,
the reform also requires that immigrants receive a national and international criminal
background check (Executive), a countermeasure to any criminals who seek to take
advantage of the reforms implementations. In that respect, the reform assists us in
tackling another one our shared concerns.
Texas is also weary of the reform burdening State expenditures due to extending the
applicability of health care, education, and the processing of professional licenses
(Understanding the) to illegal immigrants. Also according to Texas Solicitor General
Scott Keller whos arguing for Texas, it is the affirmative act of granting lawful presence
status and eligibility for benefits that violates the law and thats why its unlawful
(Aguilar). Thus, it is clear, Texas believes that illegal aliens are not entitled to any
benefits of citizenship at the expense of the state. Moreover, Texas also implicitly
resonates with the idea that extending deferred action or lawful presence along with
eligibility for benefits to an illegal resident is simply unconstitutional.
However, The Texas solicitor General admitted that the executive branch could
systematically defer deportation as long as that is all that they are doing (Somin). This

circulates back to the fact that the aliens presence essentially becomes lawful because he
or she is lawfully deferred through the Executive Branchs discretion, hence they are
indirectly granted lawful presence via deferred action.
Evidently there is a thin line between deferred action and lawful presence. However, the
Presidents executive order for immigration reform should still be upheld because the
DACA/DAPAs guidelines place limitations on the behavior of illegal aliens who are
granted lawful presence through the reforms requisites for renewal. In that respect the
lawful presence is severely limited lawful presence subject to the executive branchs
right to exercise discretion.
Moreover, there does come a time when an illegal aliens ability to reap benefits that are
otherwise reserved to legal citizens is no longer unlawful in itself. That time comes when
the illegal alien through the guidelines of the DACA and DAPA reform emulates the
actions of legal US citizens.
This is because legally they would fulfill all requisites to be categorized as US citizens
through abiding by the guidelines of the DACA and DAPA. Not only does this render
their presence lawful, but also the nature in which they do it involves working with the
government to better the country, which is desirable trait among US citizens. This is
because the initiatives for the DACA and DAPA include, Modernizing, improving and
clarifying immigrant and nonimmigrant visa programs to grow our economy and create
jobs (Executive). It is also worth noting that nearly one half of farmworkers, which
are inherently an agricultural-economic necessity, are undocumented immigrants
(President).
In that respect, if illegal aliens simulate the same qualities as US citizens, and have been
dwelling on US soil for an upwards of five years since 2010, an action among Obamas
proposed immigration reforms listed requirements, then they have essentially verified
their assimilation into a US citizens lifestyle. And thus, although they are not US citizens
legally, through their actions they are US citizens in actuality. Moreover, by operating in
accordance with the reform they become desirable US citizens through helping the
country. Thus they should be eligible for the benefits that come from being a citizen.
A Supreme Court Case that justifies this proposed idea is Graham v. Department of
Public Welfare. A component of this ruling revolved around ensuring the impartial
treatment of legal aliens for the sake of equally allotted citizenship rights in accordance
with the 14th Amendment. Justice Blackmun who delivered the opinion of the court cited
that, "justification of limiting expenses is particularly inappropriate and unreasonable
when the discriminated class consists of aliens. Aliens, like citizens, pay taxes, and may
be called into the armed forces. Unlike the short-term residents in Shapiro, aliens may
live within a state for many years, work in the state and contribute to the economic
growth of the state" (Skelton).

In that respect, we can easily see how the Court used the positive citizen attributes of
legal immigrants to qualify them as worthy of receiving citizen-benefits by the State in
accordance with the 14th Amendment. Among these attributes included the paying of
taxes and economic growth, assets which illegal aliens who seek to apply for the DACA
and DAPA would also hold. And if they did not hold those factors initially, fact remains
that after being accepted into the DACA or DAPA programs, they will likely hold those
positive citizen factors because they will be operating within the DACA and DAPA
guidelines, which involve Modernizing, improving and clarifying immigrant and
nonimmigrant visa programs to grow our economy and create jobs. As earlier stated, the
reform only tempts illegal immigrants into revealing their identity thereby enticing them
into operating as more productive citizens in exchange for not being deported.
Moreover, Justice Blackmun also stated, we hold that a state Statute that denies welfare
benefits to resident aliens, and those who have not resided in the United States for a
specified number of years violates the equal protection clause (Skeller). In that respect,
States simply should not be able to curtail an aliens ability to achieve benefits that
derive from naturalization, for in doing so, the are being denied their ability to achieve
equal protection or recognition as legal residents subject to the rights of US citizens. In
respect to the Federal government, it was also stated that the National government has
broad constitutional powers concerning the matter of alien admittance, the period they
may remain, regulation of how they can achieve naturalization, as well as the conditions
thereof (Skeller). Therefore, with the USCIS (United States Citizens Immigration
Services) being a Federal organization, its guidelines should overpower the States
attempt to resist in this case.
This ruling may not seem applicable to illegal aliens since it only involves legal aliens,
but it is, in that I have given grounds through legal reasoning for how illegal aliens
should be entitled to governmental benefits through operating with the government and in
accordance with positive qualities of US citizens. Thus, if the US government is allowed
to discriminate against these US citizens ability to gain temporary citizenship through a
legal technicality of not a legal resident, no legal presence can be granted as Texas
insist, than this illegal technicality ignores the weightier part of the law. That is to not
discriminate against, or refrain from granting rights to, those who are essentially
simulative of US citizens. For this reason, I believe that you have an opportunity to shape
the justice system more around Justice, through ensuring no partiality, a fulfillment of
another true objective of the legal or justice system.
This is because all US citizens including those who have not yet gained their official legal
status as a US citizen will be more equally treated through giving them the opportunity to
take the foremost step to becoming an official US citizen who can operate under official
legal protocols. That foremost step would be reserving them the luxury of temporary
residency so that they are eligible for the benefits of US citizens. Of course if they do not
simulate productive qualities of US citizens, then they should be deported.
As Justice Blackmun cited, aliens as a class are a prime example of discrete and
insular minority in accordance with the United States v. Carolene Product. Co., for
whom heightened judicial solicitude is appropriate (Skeller). This is all the more reason

for the court to rule in favor of Obamas executive reform which essentially extends
rights to a group of aliens who are US citizens in actuality, who unfortunately retain the
status of illegal aliens, which puts them at an extreme disadvantage for judicial
solicitude because they have no access to it. Take for example the earlier cited
agricultural farmworker illegal aliens who have no access to the legal system to bargain
for their employment rights in spite of their contributions.
In sum, illegal aliens are here, and we cannot simply deport them all. They inevitably
work within the scopes of the US economy. Therefore, we should do what we can to
ensure that their residency in this country is productive for all of us. In return they shall
be granted the right to stay in our lands, but only while operating under specialized
guidelines that were created for them under the DACA/DAPA executive order reform. In
return for their positive citizen attributes, they should also be entitled to equal citizen
rights or equity.
Even if Texas chooses not to believe the preceding arguments, the evidence therein
warrants the idea that following through with Obamas orders by no means guarantees
severe harm Texas or the States, especially when considering the ways in which it
potentially helps Texas. Taking that into account, coupled with the fact the main issue that
a surplus of immigrants are currently taxing the immigration system still stands, a
compromise is proposed.
If the executive order for deferred action equates to the granting of unconstitutional
lawful status or presence, the Court can allow the Presidents order to stand temporarily
until 1) Congress formulates better legislation, or 2) His executive order proves to be
hazardous. The justification can be upholding the concept of Checks and Balances and
the executive branchs authority to exercise discretion through ameliorative guidelines
when the Legislative Branch is negligent to its duty. However, this ruling should only
stand when both parties are in agreement of a broken policy/system (as in the current
case), lest this ruling grant blatant legislative power to the executive branch in all other
situations. However, with the aforementioned specification, the executive branch can
check the legislative branch without overstepping its boundaries in the future.

With much gratitude, respect, and concern,

Patrick Clowney

Works Cited
"Executive Actions on Immigration." USCIS. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2016.
Aguilar, Julin. "As Supreme Court Prepares to Hear Historic Immigration Case, Texas
Explains Its Strategy." The Texas Tribune. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2016.
"President Obama Announces Executive Action on Immigration: November 20 and 21,
2014." Historic Documents of 2014 (n.d.): 558-70. Farmworkerjustice.org.
Farmworkerjustice.org. Web.
Skelton, Chris. "Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare 403 U.S. 365 (1971)." Justia
Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2016.
Somin, Ilya. "Yes, Obama's Executive Action Deferring Deportation for Millions of
Immigrants Is Constitutional." Reason.com. N.p., 19 Apr. 2016. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
"Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action."Understanding the Legal
Challenges to Executive Action. American Immigration Council, 21 Jan. 2016. Web. 03
Apr. 2016.